Unconstitutional

Australia’s lower house of parliament has passed the first in a series of counter-terrorism amendments toughening the country’s national security law. The new legislation could see journalists jailed for reporting on related matters.

National Security Amendments Bill (No. 1), passed by Australia’s House of Representatives on Wednesday, says a person who discloses information relating to a special intelligence operation may face from five to 10 years behind bars.

Copying, transcribing or retaining records of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is also outlawed, which is seen as a measure taken in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks of documents on the US’s National Security Agency.

AFP Photo/Philippe Huguen

Reporting on national security matters is being restricted simultaneously with more powers being granted to the country’s surveillance agency, with their power to monitor computers being expanded.

The government has justified the legislation as one boosting the country’s security in the wake of terrorist threat posed by the Islamic State extremist group (IS, formerly ISIS or ISIL).

“This is not, as has been wrongly suggested, about preventing the release of information that might simply embarrass the government of the day or expose it to criticism,” Justice Minister Michael Keenan said. “This is about providing a necessary and proportionate limitation on the communication of information that relates to the core business of intelligence agencies.”

The Australian parliament in the House of Representatives chamber at Parliament House in Canberra (AFP Photo/Alan Porritt)

One of the most ardent critics of the law is former intelligence whistleblower-turned-federal MP Andrew Wilkie.

“This is clamping down on free speech; this is clamping down on oversight of what the security agencies are up to,” he said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Another opponent of the law is Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt, who believes intelligence agents could go unpunished for any possible misconduct as a result.

“If these laws pass, our security agencies could inadvertently kill an innocent bystander and journalists would not be able to report on it,” Bandt said.

However, there weren’t enough critics of the law in the lower house to prevent it from being passed. The legislation was supported by the main opposition Labor Party.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York based NGO, issued a statement saying it was worried by the new Australian legislation.

“This national security bill and other draft legislation raise grave concerns about the direction in which Australia is heading,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Bob Dietz. “These bills would seriously hamper reporting in the public interest and we urge lawmakers to add the necessary safeguards to protect journalists and whistleblowers.”

The controversial law is one in a series of amendments to the country’s 1979 intelligence act, which are supposed to upgrade the country’s legislation in the face of the terrorist threat the government has been concerned about. Prime Minister Tony Abbott earlier warned the amendments might shift “balance between freedom and security.”

AFP Photo/Welayat Salahuddin

In mid-September, Australia raised its terror alert to the second highest level in response to the activities of the extremist IS group in the in the Middle East.

Abbott warned there were at least 60 Australians fighting alongside terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, and at least 100 Australians who were supporting them. The PM also pointed to the fact that more than 20 of these foreign fighters have already returned to Australia and pose a threat to national security.

Islamic State spokesman issued a speech September 21, urging Muslims to launch attacks on civilians from US-led coalition countries, including Australia.

Among other counter-terrorism amendments that are pending parliamentary approval in Australia are a law that would require the country’s telecom companies to save metadata and provide it to government agencies, and also a law restricting travel to conflict zones in the Middle East.

Further evidence that the Obama Regime is busy crafting ways to take away your constitutional rights comes in the form of another United States bureaucracy that has been politically weaponized.

The U.S. Forest Service is requiring reporters to pay permits costing up to $1,500 to take pictures or video in federally designated wilderness areas, with costly fines of course, for disobeying the new tyrannical shredding of the First Amendments.

Virtually every federal government bureaucracy has been politically weaponized, including the IRS and EPA, but now the U.S. Forest Service?

Fees, penalties, permits to take pictures of trees or a lake?

Welcome to Obama’s America, or shall we call it “fundamental transformation” or “hope and change?”

The Oregonian reports that these new rules are being finalized in November:

The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country’s wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas.

Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in any of the nation’s 100 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone.

Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don’t get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.

First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they’d allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories.

Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, “It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can’t.”

About the author: Matthew Burke is a former Financial Advisor/Planner for 24 years. He was a 2010 Constitutional Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington State.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

A plan to ban “frequent and large gatherings at neighborhood homes” is a lawsuit waiting to happen, a Fairfax County supervisor predicts.

Officials will get an idea Wednesday when public-comment hearings begin in Virginia’s most populous county.

“I believe the county is risking a lawsuit and/or a constitution challenge by interfering with peoples’ right to assemble,” Supervisor Pat Herrity said in a statement.

Virginia Proposal Would Limit How Many People You Can Have Visit Your House

The proposed zoning ordinance limits “group assembly” at residences to 49 people a day. Such gatherings “shall not occur more frequently than three times in any 40-day period.”

County officials say they have received complaints about group meetings at homes. But Herrity said “they haven’t even reached 1 percent of the thousands of complaints our Department of Code Compliance investigates a year.”

“This is yet another instance where we appear to be punishing the many for the actions of the few,” said Herrity, who reported a total of six complaints were received last year.

Church groups, scouting organizations or even sports fans drawn to a home’s big-screen TV during playoffs could be potential targets of the proposed county law. Realtors worry that even open houses would invite civil penalties.

John Whitehead, an attorney and president of the civil-libertarian Rutherford Institute, calls the Fairfax plan “nefarious.”

“Broad enactments like these have governments assuming that private property is their property,” Whitehead said in an interview with Watchdog.org.

“If you can’t determine what goes on at your own residence, you have surrendered your rights. The Constitution is founded on property rights.”

The TSA is funding the rollout of exit pods at major airport terminals across the country that temporarily detain passengers before they are allowed to leave, another example critics say of how the federal agency’s policies treat travelers as prisoners.

Travelers are forced to be bottlenecked through the pods as they leave the airport terminal. A robotic voice gives instructions to wait inside the pod until a green light is shown and the door opens.

The pods have already been installed at Syracuse International Airport as part of a $60 million dollar renovation and are likely to make their way into other major airports soon. Once travelers exit the pods, they are unable to re-enter the terminal.

Some of the passengers exiting through the pods at Syracuse thought the machineswere performing x-ray body scans, according to CNY Central.

“It was odd, I was like – where did they come up with this?” asked Patricia Goodrich.

“We need to be vigilant and maintain high security protocol at all times. These portals were designed and approved by TSA which is important,” said Syracuse Airport Commissioner Christina Callahan.

The justification for installing the pods is that they replace police or security guards who would normally stand at the exit, therefore saving money, something which the TSA isn’t normally concerned about given how it is now selling abandoned naked body scanners to prisons for 10 per cent of their value.

According to Karen De Coster, the pods are a way “to remind you that you are a captive” and are “meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave.”

The prison inmate feel of the devices compliments numerous other TSA policies which critics have charged serve little other purpose than making travelers feel like they are under constant suspicion.

Another policy that has provoked questions is the TSA’s random testing of passengers’ drinks for explosivesafter they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Travelers are now being subjected to even more invasive screening procedures by the infamous Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Before “allowing” people to travel, the TSA is performing unwarranted checks of a wide variety of personal documents, going further than ever before into the lives of innocent passengers. As expected, Americans will roll over for the new intrusions and accept that they are necessary to protect the Homeland.

The new pre-screening procedure is more exhaustive than a federal background check. The TSA will now be dramatically expanding their reach into the lives of every passenger, and scouring all of the following documents, according to the New York Times:

private employment information

vehicle registrations

travel history

property ownership records

physical characteristics

tax identification numbers

past travel itineraries

law enforcement information

“intelligence” information

passport numbers

frequent flier information

other “identifiers” linked to DHS databases

“I think the best way to look at it is as a pre-crime assessment every time you fly,” said Edward Hasbrouck to the New York Times. Hasbrouck is a consultant to the Identity Project, one of the groups that oppose the prescreening initiatives. “The default will be the highest, most intrusive level of search, and anything less will be conditioned on providing some additional information in some fashion.”

What gives the TSA this authority? The constitution does not even provide for the TSA’s existence. In fact, the constitution ensures that the federal government will not perform these kinds of searches without probable cause or a warrant. Yet all day, every day, the agency devotes itself to performing warrantless searches of travelers. Its existence is a travesty, and its mission-creep is alarming (and predictable).

And what will the TSA do with this information? Nobody is explaining what criteria the agency will be looking for to indicate whether a passenger will be denied the right to travel. How can job history and vehicle registration possibly be relevant to flightsafety? What happens if you have criminal convictions on your record? More groping?

Is owing taxes going to prevent people from flying? Actually, the NYT reports that the TSA will be reporting their findings to “a debt collection agency for the purpose of debt collection.”

The process is meant to be onerous. The only alternative that travelers are left with is to join the TSA’s “PreCheck” program and become a “trusted traveler.” This program allows passengers to willingly submit their biometric fingerprint scans into a FBI database, submit to a criminal background check, and pay the TSA a fee of $85.00 for a five-year PreCheck membership. RT reports that the TSA may net $255 Million hustling travelers in 2013. This option is still highly invasive, and actually enriches the very entity that is violating our liberties, so it hardly seems like a viable alternative.

Ask yourself: Is this how free people travel? Every trip is now turned into a personal investigation by the federal government. This might be reasonable research to do on inmates transferring between maximum security prisons, but not for people trying to travel between American cities.

Primary Sidebar

About A Sheep No More

A Sheep No More is no longer plugged into the Matrix like the many sheep who are still programmed to believe that they have correct information provided by a varied and “independent media.” In fact the media is owned by 5 or 6 mega-media companies run by corporate advertising executives and Washington.